Stakes are high for workers’ rights
corporations, even when their negligence resulted in the death of a worker. Kavanaugh’s record shows that he is not capable of being an independent justice who will uphold the rights of all Americans.
Further, Kavanaugh has ignored legal precedent by ruling several times against working families and siding with employers in denying employees relief from discrimination in the workplace. Specifically, he wrote a decision to limit workers’ Weingarten rights, which allow them to request union representation if a supervisor asks questions that could lead to disciplinary action. He also sided with an employer who fired an employee simply because he had turned 65.
Additionally, Kavanaugh threatens the health care security of millions of Americans. He fulfills the president’s dangerous litmus test to weaken and rule against the Affordable Care Act. At stake are protections for people with pre-existing conditions and a reversal of the ruling that the ACA is constitutional.
Ultimately, he would further the attacks that threaten working families — efforts to take away our health care, strip worker protections, scapegoat and detain immigrants, rig our elections and even further strip power from labor unions to fairly represent our members. We can’t allow these attacks to continue unchecked.
The court’s constitutional responsibility is to provide checks and balances to Congress and the president. Kavanaugh, though, believes the president should be above the law. He has argued that a sitting president should not be subject to criminal prosecution, or even investigation. In the United States, no person, particularly an elected official, is above the law.
We deserve a Supreme Court that protects the rights and freedoms of all Americans — not just the wealthy and powerful — and that holds the president and Congress accountable.
We can’t risk more rulings, like Janus v. AFSCME, that attack the freedom of working people to join strong unions. The Supreme Court needs thoughtful, independent justices who make rulings on a case-by-case basis, not as a rubberstamp for a corporate agenda or political party. That means asking hard questions and demanding clear answers.
We deserve to know how any nominee would approach fundamental freedoms before the court, including workers’ rights, voting rights and privacy rights. Why are special interest groups spending millions to put him on the court? Will he be beholden to them? Will the nominee value individual rights or bend the rules to advantage CEOS and corporations? What are the proper limits on executive power?
We urge readers to contact Sens. Dean Heller and Catherine Cortez Masto to pose these questions and demand answers.